Need Advice with Handling Plaintiff's Response to Citicorp's Discovery Demands

[sandyfeets]

My fiance is being sued by Citicorp for over $18K credit card debt through their attorneys, XXXXXXXX. So far, it does not look like they will walk away. I should first point out that we have been out of work for several years and are on the edge of retirement, have no ability to pay, and her name has been removed from all assets and bank accounts prior to default so she has nothing to lose. If she loses, she can always file bankruptcy. Up to this point, I have followed the advice listed throughout the postings on this site and several others: DV letter, answer to summons, and our discovery demands. I have also completed our response to their interrogatories, but don't have to mail them until after the first of the year. Yesterday, the plaintiff's 30 days were up, so she called them and faxed a letter granting them five additional days to answer or we would file a Motion To Compel with Sanctions. Today - surprise! - their answers arrived in the mail. I need help in answering them. Naturally, they are not providing anything except a year's worth of copies of alleged statements, plus an "affadavit" from someone claiming to be a records clerk in a subsidiary, CCSI. No contract with signature or terms of agreement have ever been provided to date, and no documents were attached to the original summons.

The Plaintiff's Responses begin with a list of General Objections:

Plaintiff expressly reserves all objections concerning the admissibility of these responses into evidence at the trial of this action or in any other proceeding.

1. Citibank objects to these discovery requests to the extent they seek information subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or any other applicable privilege or protection.

2. To the extent a discovery request seeks disclosures of confidential, proprietary, and/or commercial information or documents and such information or documents are otherwise discoverable, Citibank will produce such information or documents only pursuant to the terms of an agreed Protective Order.

3. Citibank objects to any and all discovery requests to the extent that they are overly broad, are unduly burdensome, are not specific as to time, seek irrelevant information, are not stated with reasonable particularity, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4. Citibank objects to the instructions and the definitions contained in these discovery requests to the extent that they purport to expand, enlarge or alter Citibank's obligations under the applicable Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. Citibank objects to any and all discovery requests to the extent that they seek information or the identification of documents, writings, records, or publications in the public domain since such information is equally available to Defendant.

6. Citibank objects to any and all discovery requests seeking information related to other lawsuits or debts other than defendant's debt at issue in this case, on the basis that such requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome as to production time and cost, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7. Citibank reserves the right to supplement its responses to defendant's discovery requests as additional information becomes known or available to Citibank.

These General Objections are incorporated by reference into each response provided below, and the inclusion of any specific objections in a response to any request is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to be, a waiver of any General Objection. In addition, the failure to include at this time any general or specific objection to a Request is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed to be, a waiver of Plaintiff's right to assert that or any other objection at a later date.

RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

1. Any oral or written statements by me the Plaintiff expects to offer at trial.

Response: Subject to the general objections, Plaintiff has not yet determined which documents it intends to offer at trial of this matter. Plaintiff will submit its Exhibit List in accordance with any Scheduling Order entered by the Court.

2. Any documents the Plaintiff intends to offer into evidence at a trial of this matter and a statement of their proffered significance.

Response: Subject to the general objections, Plaintiff has not yet determined which documents it intends to offer at the trial of this matter. Plaintiff will submit its Exhibit List in accordance with any Scheduling Order entered by the Court.

3. A list of all witnesses Plaintiff intends to call at trial, including name, address, title, and the subject matter of their anticipated testimony.

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff also objects on the grounds that a discovering party is not entitled to demand a list of all witnesses to be called at trial. See ex parte Dorsey Trailers, Inc., (397 So. 2d 98 (Ala. 1981). Plaintiff will provide its witness list in accordance with any Scheduling Order entered by the Court.

4. Any and all documents evidencing communication to/from me and Plaintiff with regards to the Agreement described in Plaintiff's petition, including letters and correspondence.

Response: Subject to the general objections, please see the attached periodic billing statements. Plaintiff will supplement this production as further responsive documents are retrieved or discovered.

To be continued in subsequent posting.

Edited January 11, 2011 by sandyfeets

[sandyfeets]

Continuation of posting

5. The alleged credit application for the Account referenced in the Plaintiff's Petition, bearing the Defendant's signature.

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff objects on the grounds that it is the Defendant's use of the card that signaled her assent to the terms of the card agreement, thus a signed application is not necessary to prove the existence of a contract. See SouthTrust Bank v. Williams,775 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 2000); Taylor v. First North Am. Nat'l Bank, 325 F. Supp.2d 1304 (M.D. Ala. 2004); Jefferson v. HSBC Nevada, N.A.,2008 WL 2559395 (M.D. Ala. June 23, 2008). Plaintiff objects to the extent that this request calls for the production of documents not in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff. Citibank asserts that the requested documents might be in the possession of Defendant or are equally discoverable by Defendant and Plaintiff cannot be compelled to produce documents to which it does not have a superior right of control. Subject to and notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiff's counsel only received these requests on December 10, 2010 when it retrieved them from the online court file at Alacourt.com. Plaintiff is still retrieving documents responsive to these requests. Plaintiff will produce the application for the account if it is in Plaintiff's possession.

Did they just admit they don't have it and expect me to provide it???

6. The alleged credit agreement for the Account referenced in the Plaintiff's petition, that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, etc.

Response: Subject to the general objections and the following specific objections, Plaintiff will produce a copy of the current card agreement. Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it calls for information or the production of documents not in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff. Citibank asserts that the requested documents might be in the possession of Defendant or are equally discoverable by Defendant and Plaintiff cannot be compelled to produce documents to which it does not have a superior right of control. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that Regulation Z only requires it to retain documents of this nature for two years.

Once again, they don't have it, she should, and they aren't required to keep it. Right.

7. Itemized statements or credit card statements from the Account referenced in the Plaintiff's petition that demonstrate how the alleged amount of $XXXXXXXX was calculated.

Response: Subject to the general objections, please see the attached periodic billing statements. Plaintiff will supplement this response to produce all available periodic statements.

They attached the most recent year's worth of statements only for an account that goes back 8-10 years.

8. A contract, agreement, assignment, or other means of demonstrating that XXXXXXXX, P.C., is legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt for the Plaintiff.

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information or documentation protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Which doesn't explain why I was contacted by another debt collector simultaneously with this case regarding the same debt. I mentioned this in the Response to Summons. I sent a cease & desist letter to them and haven't heard back.

9. A notarized statement, if presently existing or otherwise, by a person with original knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted, and who can testify, or be so interrogated in a deposition, that the alleged debt was incurred legally.

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information or documentation protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine, seeks information or documentation not relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague in its use of the terms "original knowledge" and "incurred legally".

10. Any and all credit reports Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's attorney obtained from any credit reporting agency concerning the Defendant.

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that none of the claims or defenses asserted in this matter relate to credit reporting, thus this request seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Any and all written communication, received by the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's attorneys from the Defendant, regarding the reporting of the alleged account to any credit reporting agency, as well as Plaintiff's and/or Plaintiff's attorney accessing of Defendant's credit report(s).

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that none of the claims or defenses asserted in this matter relate to credit reporting, thus this request seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence.

12. Any and all notes, memoranda, or likewise, be they handwritten, computerized, or typed, regularly kept in the normal transaction and business of collecting debts, that relate to the defendant and/or Account referenced in the Plaintiff's petition.

Response: In addition to the general objections, Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information or documentation protected by the attorney-client privilege.

13. The name, address, and title of those people who helped prepare the answers to this demand (lawyer and his/her employees are not a responsive answer).

Response: Subject to the general objections, these responses were prepared by Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information or documentation protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.

OK, that's the whole response. I'm not sure how to respond or what to do next. I'm a bit troubled by the indication that there is case law that supports the irrelevancy of an original signed contract and terms of contract, because most everything I've read here and elsewhere says essentially that they don't have a case if they can't produce it. They seem to feel that all they need are statements and a notarized affadavit to win. I will include the "notarized affadavit" they provided in a subsequent posting. My inner quasi-legal sense tells me that the case revolves around destroying the credibility of the "affadavit", because if I don't respond and do so, it is admitted into evidence and then they can file for summary judgment.

I know the holiday timing is bad, but can someone please help me with this?

Edited January 11, 2011 by sandyfeets

[sandyfeets]

Here is the notarized affadavit.

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Cindy S. Scumbag, who being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:

1. My name is Cindy S. Scumbag, and I am of sound mind, lawful age, capable of making this Affadavit. The statements set forth in this affadavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief based on either personal knowledge or review of the business records described herein. I am authorized to make this affadavit on behalf of Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ("Citibank").

2. I am employed by Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. (USA), which is referred to herein as "CCSI." CCSI is a subsidiary of Citibank and services credit card accounts owned by Citibank, including maintaining and recording information in Citibank's records as they relate to credit card accounts issued by Citibank. Citibank is a National Bank located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

3. By virtue of the CCSI/Citibank relationship, my employment duties include being a custodian of records for CCSI and Citibank with respect to credit card accounts issued by Citibank. As a custodian of records, I have knowledge of, and access to, relevant account information and records concerning Citibank account number ending in XXXX (the "Account"), which is the subject of this lawsuit, including: the name and address of the debtor (hereafter "defendant"); that the defendant did apply for and was issued the Account; the Account's history of charges representing extensions of credit, finance charges, fees imposed, payments made, and credits received; and the outstanding balance due on the Account.

4. Citibank's records reflect the defendant did use or authorize the use of the Account for the purpose of obtaining extensions of credit to purchase goods and services and/or cash advances. Defendant has been provided periodic billing statements for the Account (other than months in which no statement may have been required under applicable law) describing the amount due. Defendant, having agreed to the terms and conditions of the Account by defendant's use of the Account, did eventually fail to make timely payments on the Account according to the terms of the card agreement and as requested on the periodic billing statements. The last payment received by Citibank on the Acccount was posted to the Account on 3/19/2010. Defendant is presently in default on the Account.

5. Exhibit A attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the statement transaction detail on the last periodic billing statement for the Account that was sent to defendant, which reflects the balance due and owing on the Account as of closing date on such affiliates (including CCSI), in the course of regularly conducted business activity, and is part of the regular practice of Citibank to create and maintain such information, and also was made at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event or within a reasonable time thereafter. As reflected on Exhibit A, the balance of $XXXXX on the Account is presently due, plus applicable interest from the closing date on Exhibit A until paid.

6. Demand for payment of the balance owning was made more than thirty (30) days prior to making this affadavit, after which the attorneys representing Citibank were retained for the purpose of collecting the delinquent debt owed on the Account.

7. The debt reflected on Exhibit A is delinquent, past due and remains due and owing. Citibank is the party and entity to whom the delinquent debt is owed. There are no payments, set-offs, credits, or allowances due or to become due from Citibank to the defendant, other than those set forth herein or set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto.

8. Defendant has made no claim of being an active member in the military services of the United States or any state thereof, and to the best of my knowledge the defendant is not an active member in military service. Nor has defendant requested reduction of the interest rate on this account to 6% pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

9. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Account, defendant agreed to pay reasonable attorneys' fees to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. in the event it becomes necessary to hir an attorney to collect any unpaid balance.

OK, that's the whole deal. I know it's a form letter signed and notarized before any contact by their attorney with us, and I know it's key to their case, because I've denied everything in the interrogatories. I've read other posts on quashing 3rd Party Debt Collectors' so-called affadavits. But how can I destroy this one from a subsidiary of the OC? It must be done within the next 30 days.

Edited December 31, 2010 by sandyfeets

[sandyfeets]

I apologize for monopolizing this thread and asking more questions before any have been answered, but I ran across some advice on another site I wanted to pass along and ask if I should submit this. It involves a Sworn Denial. The posting says:

File a Sworn Denial. This step is vital, especially if you don't owe all the money for which you are being sued. Don't lie to the court; if you owe the amount in question, you cannot deny the debt. However, seldom does the collection attorney sue for the correct amount nor justify an accounting of the complete debt sued for. The sworn denial is a simple statement filed with the court once you are sued. It can be a simple statement, but it needds to be typed, signed, notarized, filed with the clerk of the court, and a copy sent to the collection lawyer. It needs to be a graduated denial. In other words, it needs to say, "I deny that this is my debt and if it is my debt, I deny that it is still a valid debt and if it is a valid debt, I deny the amount sued for is the correct amount." The sworn denial is a powerful tool! It eliminates the Sworn Affadavit of Account that the collection attorney has. The vast majority of collection suits proceed without a witness for the creditor. The collection attorney enters an affadavit, signed by the creditor, that the debtor owes the debt and that this is the amount. With that affadavit in hand, the court gives the creditor a judgment. When a sworn denial is filed, the debt collection attorney cannot rely upon a sworn affadavit of account, but must instead produce a live witness to testify about the debt. The requirement of a live witness changes the dynamic of the collection action considerably. The likelihood that the action will not go any further increases again.

So as I understand it, if I file this very quickly, it can damage the affadavit?

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Their affidavit seems pretty solid to me and would probably survive most challenges. Do you honestly have any defenses or is the money they are asking for actually owed? They will not have to produce anything with a signature on it to prove that a contractual relationship exists, this is a myth if you have read this anywhere it is wrong. It is well established that use of a credit card is acceptance of its terms and an implied contractual relationship exists.

As far as what to do from here, it depends on what your actual goals are... what would you consider a good outcome being?

[sandyfeets]

Thanks for responding. Obviously, my desired outcome would be to avoid a judgment, because there are several other cards that will probably follow over time. As I said in my first post, my fiance has no assets listed in her name, she doesn't work, and has no bank account. At our age, credit rating means nothing. Surviving means everything. The home she previously had lost 2/3 of its equity thanks to the greed of banks like Citicorp causing our economic mess and she got virtually nothing from its sale. She lost most of her retirement IRA due to the same reason. If she can't keep the judgments away, in another year she can file bankruptcy. I have simply been trying to help her avoid that last resort. I would ask if you or anyone else knows whether the graduated statement of denial I provided in my previous post will work to defeat the affadavit and require them to produce a witness as the information I was quoting stated?

[jackson212]

what is the complaint based on? breach of contract or account stated?

and who is the card with? citibank?

and date of delinquency?

[jackson212]

and did they also sue you for legal fees in addition to the balance? interest?

determine the dates of usage if you can and see how recent the card was used.... the farther back since last usage the better. i dont know if this is your card or not but if the card was used recently it may be harder to convincingly deny

how long has the card been active is another good question to consider

Edited December 19, 2010 by jackson212

[sandyfeets]

They have listed three causes of action: breach of contract, money had and received, and account stated.

The card originated 7-8 years ago as an AT&T Universal Card, which I understand Citibank acquired in 1995, but no mention of Citibank when card was issued. It went delinquent in March of 2010. The charges may be valid but cannot be claimed thusly on a site accessible by attorneys who, I understand, do search around for information. They seek interest, attorneys' fees, court costs, and anything else they can get their hands on. In my opinion, she used the card regularly after her husband died to allow her to continue mortgage payments in order not to lose the house, which took 3 years to sell, but her funds ran out in the spring.

I have read local attorney website/blogs that suggest that affadavits can be beaten, but she doesn't have the money to hire one and while I can continue to make their attorney run up hours filing paperwork. For example, the three cases they list in support of their claim that they don't need an original contract. I have read all three and they have nothing to do with credit card debt and they do not support the claim their attorney is making, as far as my research suggests. I can also make a duplicate "statement" with my desktop publishing software to demonstrate how easily they can be fabricated. But my gut tells me that if I can't destroy their affadavit, they will file for summary judgment after my 30 days to respond ends.

[skippy1960]

Directionally, regarding the affidavit-how does the testimony of a person from Citibank testify and authenticate a contract between ATT Universal Card, I haven't heard you mention any assignment of the account?

I would explore this as a possible whole in the case and see what you can find out.

[sandyfeets]

I didn't really mention it because it is irrelevant. Citibank already owned AT&T Universal Card prior to my fiance's card being applied for. Just because they didn't tell her that at application doesn't really change anything. It was a few years later that statements began to reflect the change. I was paying her bills, so I remember it.

I'd still like to focus on the Sworn Denial. I've found a number of sites that say this is a sure way to stop the use of the affadavit because it requires them to produce a live witness to testify and this is a substantial expense which opens them up to severe cross-examination. If anyone knows anything about this, I'd love to hear about it.

[sandyfeets]

But thanks, Skippy. I have considered this, but to state what you have suggested would be hard to do without admitting she received the card, and she's admitting nothing.

[jackson212]

Directionally, regarding the affidavit-how does the testimony of a person from Citibank testify and authenticate a contract between ATT Universal Card, I haven't heard you mention any assignment of the account?

I would explore this as a possible whole in the case and see what you can find out.

i was JUST about to say this.

the more information you provide the more help you'll get. of course dont provide personal or identifying information. and when possible dont use names.

but yeah that's key information. IF what you are saying is true, then citibank needs to provide proof that they have standing. assignment, bill of sale, etc. without this they have not established their standing and therefore the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain their complaint. the fact that another debt collector contacted you about this debt is a sign that the debt may have been sold and multiple parties are trying to collect on it. now, this is not an admission of liability. at this point you either deny, OR you neither admit nor deny but ask them for proof. (its not my debt, but assuming it is my debt first prove that you own the debt then prove that it is in fact my debt, etc)

if you're in the discovery phase, ask who the original creditor is. you can use notice to admit or interrogatories.

now, while you do that you also need to come up with a defense in lieu of the standing issue. if they can prove standing then you need to prepare your next line of defense now so that you dont scramble later.

now, if they are asking for attorney fees, interest then they need the agreement. unless the agreement specifically addresses the issue if attorney fees, they cant ask for it

although they may not be a debt collector, when you have time look through this

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectroundtable1/542930-00029.pdf

one problem that you have to anticipate, is that they may be able to show a payment history. if they can show that the card was accepted, used, and payments were made, that will be hard to refute. that's only if you allow them to enter all those documents into evidence...

i can say no more at this point but you get my point.

read your local rules of evidence. this will be important when you eventually file motions to quash or motion to strike, etc

keep us updated

[skippy1960]

I didn't really mention it because it is irrelevant. Citibank already owned AT&T Universal Card prior to my fiance's card being applied for. Just because they didn't tell her that at application doesn't really change anything. It was a few years later that statements began to reflect the change. I was paying her bills, so I remember it.

I'd still like to focus on the Sworn Denial. I've found a number of sites that say this is a sure way to stop the use of the affadavit because it requires them to produce a live witness to testify and this is a substantial expense which opens them up to severe cross-examination. If anyone knows anything about this, I'd love to hear about it.

I think you are on the right track, but remember you are being sued for $18K so when they make the decision of which case the Citi affiant is going to participate in yours will be high on the list versus the suit worth $3k in another state.

[skippy1960]

But thanks, Skippy. I have considered this, but to state what you have suggested would be hard to do without admitting she received the card, and she's admitting nothing.

See information from quick search of AAT Uninversal Card-

AT&T Universal Card application on the Internet

Business Wire, May 17, 1995

1 2 Next

JACKSONVILLE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 17, 1995--To enhance communications with millions of current and future customers, AT&T Universal Card Services, AT&T's bank credit card company, Wednesday launched its home page on the Internet's World Wide Web.

The home page will provide a description of the company, its products and services, on-line applications for consumers to apply for the card, and establish a message center to share information with current and prospective customers. The message center will allow the public to ask questions and share thoughts about the company's offerings.

"We have always prided ourselves on how well we listen to our customers," said David Hunt, president and CEO-AT&T Universal Card Services. "Our home page will take this a step further. It's another channel of communication -- a new way of talking with people."

The AT&T Universal Card Services home page will be linked to AT&T Corp.'s Internet home page and located at http://www.ucs.att.com.

The AT&T Universal Card home page runs on a Netscape Commerce Server, which provides Internet security for on-line transactions and electronic data exchange. The server enables customers using a Netscape Navigator browser to send their personal information securely when applying for an AT&T Universal Card over the Internet.

AT&T Universal Card Services, with headquarters in Jacksonville, provides marketing and services for the AT&T Universal Card, AT&T's combination bank credit card and long distance calling card. With nearly 16 million accounts and 23 million cardmembers, AT&T Universal Card Services is the second-largest bank credit card issuer in the United States.

CONTACT: AT&T Universal Card Services, Jacksonville

Point being does Citi have standing to sue with out showing assignment from ATT, I would dig a bit deeper on this and see if you can find a way to knock the standing out from under them....

[sandyfeets]

That is some good information. I looked briefly over your link and I can definitely use some of the case law cited. They have offered to provide a current agreement and admit they don't have the original one. The first letter I received from the attorney identified her law firm as a debt collector, to which I replied with a DV letter. I can enter the cease and desist letter I sent the second debt collector as evidence in a Motion To Compel an answer to my discovery question #8, which asks for proof the attorney represents Citibank, which they denied on attorney-client privilege. Seems like bs to me, because if they can't prove they represent their client, that should be grounds for dismissal. And if I throw in some case law from your link, that should give me grounds to compel, I would think.

[skippy1960]

Here is a bit more information;

Citicorp has acquired AT&T's Universal Card credit card unit for $4 billion, according to bankers and advisers familiar with the discussions. The deal represents Citicorp's effort to grow its market share against rivals MBNA and Banc One, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Citicorp holds a 12.4% share of the market, followed by MBNA at 11.2%, BancOne at 9.8% and Chase Manhattan at 8.4%. Exploding charge-offs and fewer opportunities for easy growth rates have thrown the credit card industry into turmoil since Dec 1996. Several dominant players are emerging, with a second tier of businesses struggling to attract the critical high volume of users. Citicorp, the second-largest US bank, reportedly prevailed over General Electric and BankAmerica for the Universal Card unit that AT&T first put up for sale in Oct 1997. Universal Card subscribers offered annual fees for life, but Citicorp may revoke the attractive feature. Credit card business profits rely on card holders' large monthly balances and high interest rates.

Author: O'Brien, Timothy

Publisher: The New York Times Company

Publication Name: The New York Times

Subject: Business, general

ISSN: 0362-4331

Year: 1997

Mergers, acquisitions and divestments, Company acquisition/merger, Citicorp, CCI

So you see they do need to show assignment to prove part of their case. Your gal had an agreement with ATT U-Card that was purchased in 1997.

[sandyfeets]

Thanks, Skippy. I grew up in Jacksonville, so am pretty familiar with ATT Universal. Acquired by Citi in 1997. I realize my fiance is a prime target due to the amount of the debt. She had a Citi card too, so they got doubly spanked. Haven't heard about that yet. I will pursue that area further, just a bit squeamish about contesting something I have knowledge about without admitting ownership.

[sandyfeets]

The confusing thing, Skippy, is that the card was applied for shortly after 2000 (I've said 8 or so years ago), so Citibank already owned ATT Universal. But there was no reference to Citi on the card or on statements until a couple of years ago. With this information, does that change your argument?

[skippy1960]

Yes it does greatly, as the date I was working off of was 1995, if she applied for the card in 2000, then it is Citi all the way. They purchases in 1997/1998 and became the bank servicing the ATT buisness, so you can't go the direction I was leading base on application in 2000.....they do have standing.

Sorry.

[sandyfeets]

So far, no one has suggested a way to fight the affadavit or contest any of the interrogatory responses, other than my own research into Sworn Denial. Any other advice? Or am I just screwed?

[sandyfeets]

OK, since I have not received any further advice, I took it upon myself to seek advice elsewhere. I'm as skeptical as the next person about people selling debt info and how they beat the system, but I found a very good one at the site beatdebtcollectors.com. Allen has a book that lays out a strategy under which he as a consumer advocate has never lost a case. Further, the book is listed at Amazon.com and has numerous reviews attesting to its success. So don't take my word for it, check it out, evaluate it, and consider downloading it or buying the book. It has certainly restored my confidence.

Since reading his book, I today mailed Plaintiff's attorney a Sworn Denial together with a Motion to Dismiss, and also threw in a Motion to Compel them to answer my discovery questions as a backup. Merry Christmas, douchebags! I will follow this up the first of the year with responses to their rogs denying everything. Yes, the Sworn Denial nullifies their boilerplate affadavit. And the depth of my attack on the Plaintiff's credibility, based on Allen's suggestions, will prove to be extremely troublesome for the Plaintiff. Allen says the one-two punch of SD plus MTD usually knock out all but the most tenacious of attorneys. At the very least, it will let them know they can't underestimate you and they'll be in for a long hard fight. One other thing I discovered on my own is that you should always read summaries of the case law the plaintiff's attorney cites, because it doesn't always apply. I took issue with multiple examples of their cited case law as not being applicable and counteracted them with case law that definitely favored my position. At this point, I feel pretty confident that I've raised issues in my MTD that they will find very difficult if not impossible to overcome. So we'll see what the judge thinks.

[FLORIDA666]

OK, since I have not received any further advice, I took it upon myself to seek advice elsewhere. I'm as skeptical as the next person about people selling debt info and how they beat the system, but I found a very good one at the site beatdebtcollectors.com. Allen has a book that lays out a strategy under which he as a consumer advocate has never lost a case. Further, the book is listed at Amazon.com and has numerous reviews attesting to its success. So don't take my word for it, check it out, evaluate it, and consider downloading it or buying the book. It has certainly restored my confidence.

Since reading his book, I today mailed Plaintiff's attorney a Sworn Denial together with a Motion to Dismiss, and also threw in a Motion to Compel them to answer my discovery questions as a backup. Merry Christmas, douchebags! I will follow this up the first of the year with responses to their rogs denying everything. Yes, the Sworn Denial nullifies their boilerplate affadavit. And the depth of my attack on the Plaintiff's credibility, based on Allen's suggestions, will prove to be extremely troublesome for the Plaintiff. Allen says the one-two punch of SD plus MTD usually knock out all but the most tenacious of attorneys. At the very least, it will let them know they can't underestimate you and they'll be in for a long hard fight. One other thing I discovered on my own is that you should always read summaries of the case law the plaintiff's attorney cites, because it doesn't always apply. I took issue with multiple examples of their cited case law as not being applicable and counteracted them with case law that definitely favored my position. At this point, I feel pretty confident that I've raised issues in my MTD that they will find very difficult if not impossible to overcome. So we'll see what the judge thinks.

I can neither tell you that by filling the Sworn Denial is Good or Bad at this point , im in the same boat as you, now ........... but i will tell you this , i went and got a consultation with an attorney in my state (FL) about my case and I asked him about the sworn denial and how that can be used against me and he replied " well, basically this is a Sworn Statement saying that you dont owe that debt and so on , if the attorney for the bank wants to be a real pain and get real nasty , he can take your deposition before trial and at trial he can go line by line on what you said against all the itemized statements that he will have in front of him, after he has proved his point he can asked for sanctions , penalties , laying under oath etc.

Im not telling you what you did is wrong , hell i did it to , but i want to make you aware of the course of action that the plaintiff may take.

But we have to Try it , because if we by being afraid of what might happen we dont try it we dont stand a chance, we are either way screwed if final judgment is given to the plaintiff.So what the hell , we have nothing to lose.

Keep fighting this bastards and dont let them boss you around.

[sandyfeets]

The Plaintiff's attorney must have been hit pretty hard after receiving my SD, MTD plus MTC, because the same day they received it they filed an answer to my MTD, which I received yesterday. It was one page of pretty lame stuff. They simply reiterated in five points their limited case, none of which they have been able to prove, and none of which rebutted anything I had laid out in my MTD. The quick turnaround suggests they aint' got nothin'. Just to rub it in, today I filed a Supplement to Pending MTD which shows that the person who provided the affidavit works for a debt collection agency, Citicorp Credit Services, and has no original knowledge of the debt, therefore anything she says is hearsay. I ended with a summary of all the points the Plaintiff, whoever it is, has failed to make. And I included my answers to their rogs, which deny everything. So I wait again to see what happens next, but I'm feeling much more confident after viewing their paltry response. Will let you know.

[sandyfeets]

Florida666, thanks for the info. Used to live there myself. I understand what you are saying, but what I have submitted is a graduated Sworn Denial, and all answers to rogs that ask for admissions that could come back to bite me in court if they prevail have been neither admitted or denied. I just stated that I didn't have enough info to either admit or deny, so please provide info. The guy whose book I mentioned above covers this in detail. In the event they depose my friend line by line, she could say the same thing without incriminating herself. They haven't proven the debt is mine so I don't have enough info to make an informed answer.

I think we're at the point where they are realizing they can't prove who the real Plaintiff is, can't provide anything more than a boilerplate affidavit with one alleged statement attached, and they're spending far too many hours on a dog of a case.

You see, most banks have securitization schemes where they raise money by packaging their credit card receivables as asset-backed securities, transferring them to one or more independent managed trusts. Defaulted credit card debt assets are supposed to be transferred back to the bank, but it is difficult to find in their SEC filings whether this has actually happened, and considering the vast amount of debt involved, it is difficult if not impossible to prove who actually owns the debt when they file. Therefore, by claiming the bank as Plaintiff, the attorneys may be committing fraud on the court by incorrectly identifying the true owner of the debt as Plaintiff. This has been one of my main arguments, supported by filed SEC Prospectus as well as by an explanation of their securitization process located on the bank's own website. Plaintiff's attorney didn't even attempt to counter this. Will let you know when I hear more, but again I strongly recommend the book. It is better than any advice I have found to date on this site.